Cultural Care “Suitability Review” for Three Rematches

[Anonymous]

We have always been with acacia and while I’m not a big fan, I’ve never found another au pair candidate through another agency and I’ve found some of the other agencies to be completely non-responsive. Cc has the most au pairs so we don’t have issues matching, eventually. We’ve hosted 4 au pairs, no rematches. I do a lot of homework and careful interviewing before matching.

[Anonymous]

Acacia is supposed to say CCAP...

[Anonymous]

Our experience with CCAP this year was a complete disaster. We joined the agency last July and after three lousy APs, we were offered a "suitability review" but just decided to leave the program. I don't know why anyone would want to stay with this company when their oversight is such crap, and the candidates are so poorly trained and have no idea what the job is and what it means to be an au pair.

First AP failed to mention during matching that her parents owned the equivalent of Nestle in her home country (or that she spent summers at their beach house). So while she was very intelligent and curious and warm, she had absolutely zero knowledge of domestic responsibilities or childcare. She had never washed a dish, cooked a meal, scrubbed a toilet, or made a bed in her life. She would walk by the piles of toys and kids clothes on her way out to her class at Georgetown (which she paid for herself but used our $500 educational stipend as a deposit for). She pitched a fit when our cleaning people didn't clean her bathroom, and demanded to know when her au pair suite was going to be cleaned. And she was the best of the three!

Second AP was a teenage rematch who had a car accident and lied about it, was caught reckless driving and speeding with our kids in the car. I also caught her sneaking boys into the house and other friends without introducing us or asking permission. Lies about where she took the car. Immature and sent back home.

Third AP was probably the worst of all. Also a rematch in her extension year, and decided she wanted to do the least amount of work possible. She claimed that when we matched we told her she would work 15 hours per week (what?!?) and that's why she joined us. Didn't follow our schedule. Didn't show up to work. Didn't come home from partying when she was scheduled to work. Unreliable, burned out, cried all the time, whined that her friends weren't working the schedule she had, all around lazy, nasty, defiant, would stomp around with tears in her eyes, slam doors, and eye roll when she didn't get her way. Drama drama drama - to the point we all avoided her. I actually think she was having pretty significant mental health issues - all warning signs of clinical depression were there -- and I informed CCAP that I was concerned about this, and they nonetheless put her in rematch.

Done. No more CCAPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like you are the common denominator or are too dumb to pick well.

Maybe a suitability review is warranted.

100% agreed. I'm glad CCAP does this. So many nightmare families out there. Not enough get the boot, but this is a good start.

[Anonymous]

The agency needs to be responsive to both host family and au pair concerns if au pairs are sent to homes that keep churning au pairs (trust me they reach out to the former au pairs via social media and get the scoop) they will share that with their friends and it becomes more difficult to recruit au pairs willing to come on the program. Problem au pairs are sent home as well. If they are continually moved along families who get the dud au pair will leave the program and their negative reviews but if au pairs are sent home without good reason again it will become difficult to recruit au pairs. Ultimately the goal is to coach families to be successful on the program. The agency could probably do a better job with the delivery sometimes. I've been with an agency for 12 years and those au pairs and host families who get the most incensed when problems arise tend to be the biggest flagerant rule breakers but sometimes I tell the agency the family is great and they get the rules but they still review them. It's a business we are audited by the State Department and have to investigae things. It does no one any good to continue to place au pairs in a family who most likely won't be successful even if they are following rules there are certain patterns that will continually end up in transition. It's a very unusal business model in that we are both customer service and rule enforcer. Similar to a country club or University you have to be vetted to get in and you have to remain a member in good standing upholding our values to stay in. Unfortunately people can't help but to take it personally when they are questioned or reviewed. It's definitely not for everyone but definitely works for some even if they've been reviewed. Sometimes people have bad luck. Definitely involve your coordinator in the matching process they can help you head off some problems and weed out some questionable applications. When looking at transitions you have to speak to Coordinator, Au Pair and Current Host Family. It is difficult for even the coordinator to get to the bottom of the story as the AP and HF are both going to tell the story from their perspective. My agency would never place an au pair who has hits a kid. In my experience even in situations where it is questionable if the au pair actually hit or hit on accident they are sent home. Imagine the liability if we knowingly sent an abusive au pair to another families home.

[Anonymous]

So did OP pass or get booted?